Math anxiety has become full-blown panic for some in the Legislature. Science also has ‘em running scared.

As a result, lawmakers appear poised to do serious damage to the substantial progress students and educators have made in raising and meeting higher learning standards. They’re engaged in a rush to solutions that could prove worse than the problem.

The worry behind the rush is understandable. Nearly half of this year’s high school juniors have yet to pass the math portion of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning, and their class is the first to face it as a graduation requirement. Passing rates on the science WASL, which was scheduled to be a graduation requirement starting in 2010, are even worse.

The governor and state schools superintendent have proposed putting off the math and science requirements for three years to allow more time for struggling students to get the extra help they need and for thoughtful, systemic changes. That sensible strategy hasn’t stopped a stampede toward the latest idea to catch fire: instituting end-of-course exams in place of the WASL. That’s in 2SHB 2327, which the House passed overwhelmingly.

End-of-course exams have merit. Testing students at the end of a course may provide a better indication of what they’ve learned than waiting several months. The idea deserves immediate and serious study.

But the House bill is so prescriptive that it would essentially throw out the math and science standards educators have built for 12 years. It would replace them with off-the-shelf tests that would become the target for new (almost certainly lower) standards. It would also require that the replacement tests include only multiple-choice questions, and limit the science test to biology. (Someone apparently decided other science topics don’t matter.)

Attaching urgency to getting all students to meet higher standards is good. Exploring every viable idea for assessing students makes sense. But there is no good reason to lock in solutions now that haven’t been vetted. Engaging in a hurried scramble for answers rather than a thoughtful process may score political points, but it surely doesn’t serve students.

Lawmakers should coalesce behind a plan to have the state Board of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction study end-of-course exams and make recommendations by the end of the year. Aligning standards with curriculum and assessment in a way that makes a high school diploma meaningful in a competitive world should be the goal. Sufficient time and thought must be devoted to doing it well.